Oh well another season over and another game where the 2nd best player won due to sad,bitter losers who got outplayed . The vote had nothing to do with any religeous aspect of Dans play, they were just p'eed off cause they got blindsided. Every player in the house lied at some time or another and on more than one occasion. Dan lost because he threw the part 3 HOH instead of winning it and taking Dani. Dan will survive without a care in the world knowing a trip to the confession box and all will be forgiven, odd how some so called christians can't seem to do the same, I allways thought the quote was "to forgive is divine"?

Even if Dan had taken Dani, I'm not sure he could have pulled off the win, regardless of what he said to the jury, because it had nothing to do with Dan's phenomenal game play.

Dan might have gotten Brit's vote, because she disliked Dani so much.Jenn and Joe clearly stated they wouldn't vote for a coach.Shane also stated he didn't want a coach in the F2, and because of his nomance, would have voted Dani.Frank was too busy being a bitter bitch because he got outplayed by the playah, so he would have prob voted Dani.Ashley? Duh...whichever way the wind was blowing would be the guess for her vote in a D/D F2.

So Dan most likely still would have come in 2nd....4/2 or 5/1. It still had nothing to do with game play, morals, lying, integrity, etc. etc. etc.

GrandmawLily, I agree. I don't think he would have won with Dani and at the most would have just gained a vote. Even though I thought Ian was great, I have to admit I was a bit disappointed. Dan was an absolute master of manipulation at the end.

I did think about it though a little more this morning and I'm good again. Ian won comps which is part of BB. Dan threw comps which is a strategy but doesn't win him any points in my book.

Frank so got on my nerves with his righteous crap. He is so not America's Player to me. I loved it when Wil called him and Joe on that.

I wonder what happened in Jury house that made Brit turn against Dani? I thought they were BFFs when she left the house.

Shane and Dani were poor sports. They both got played pure and simple. Dani even knew she was at the end. I do respect her for giving Dan the vote. He was a great coach for her and kept her in the game much longer then she probably deserved. Shane just came across as big baby.

Yea for Janelle for telling it as she saw it! Also kudos to Boogie for being a good sport and going out with class.

Georgiapeach,That is weird. Now I can understand Shane's poor attitutde on the show a little more. Maybe he would have gotten his sense of humor back if he had been with all the others who had been played just like him and had a little fun.

Some fans think that winning comps is the most important aspect of the game.Some fans think that making big moves, controlling evictions and noms is the most important aspect of the game.

All of those are important.

But what many fans refuse to consider is that every hg each season not only has to navigate the various comps and evictions and big moves in such a way that not only do they make it to the final 2 BUT ALSO play the game in such a way that hey can win a majority of the evicted house guests in the jury.

Dan played an AWESOME game if his goal was to get to final 2. He played ONE OF THE WORST GAMES EVER PLAYED BY A F2 hg, if his goal was to win.

He started the season with every hq liking and respecting him. He choose a course of play that alienated all of those people. He lost 6-1, one of the BIGGEST losing margins in BB history.

Some fans will say that the social game is the most important aspect of the game. If that is the case, Dan's strategy SUCKED and he squandered his opportunities. How any fan can blame his loss on anyone besides himself, I do not understand.

Honestly, what screwed Dan over was his speech... after all the things he did to everyone to get to the end, he totally ass-kissed his speech. When your sitting in the jury...i don't care who you are...the last thing you want to hear is the guy sitting in the chair telling you how awesome you were as a player, how he couldn't beat your awesome game play...(i know he didn't say it like i am writing it)...but what his speech sounded like was just that... he figured he would pump up their ego...it didn't work... i think when Ian started his speech, Dan didn't expect him to come off with it the way it came across...Dan tried to interject to get Ian to stutter somewhat and it didn't work. Everyone on the jury saw Ian stand up to Dan...hence the 6-1 vote. I didn't care for Ian, but i would have given him the vote after hearing both speech's.... that is how i saw it!

Well-put, Albert, I complettely agree with your analysis. Dan left out the emotional factor, which cost him the game.

Dan left out the emotional factor because he probably hoped the jury would vote on gameplay rather than emotional. He felt he had to play ruthless to win this season. The moves he pulled and how much manipulation he had on people were some of the best in BB history IMO.

As for his speech, I don't think there was anything that could have been said to win back the jury. They were all obviously bitter and voted on emotions which is exactly what Dan was hoping wouldn't happen. The fact that he won BB before didn't help.

Well-put, Albert, I complettely agree with your analysis. Dan left out the emotional factor, which cost him the game.

Dan left out the emotional factor because he probably hoped the jury would vote on gameplay rather than emotional. He felt he had to play ruthless to win this season. The moves he pulled and how much manipulation he had on people were some of the best in BB history IMO.

As for his speach, I don't think there was anything that could have been said to win back the jury. They were all obviously bitter and voted on emotions which is exactly what Dan was hoping wouldn't happen. The fact that he won BB before didn't help.

the social game and building relationships with the other HGs is just as, if not more important, than winning comps or winning HOH or POV. Failure to incorporate that part of the game into your strategy is just as stupid as a tennis coach teaching his students how to return serve but not how to serve themselves.

The only way Dan can be considered a great player is by ignoring or minimizing the socal game. Sorry, that spin doesnt work.

Well-put, Albert, I complettely agree with your analysis. Dan left out the emotional factor, which cost him the game.

Dan left out the emotional factor because he probably hoped the jury would vote on gameplay rather than emotional. He felt he had to play ruthless to win this season. The moves he pulled and how much manipulation he had on people were some of the best in BB history IMO.

As for his speach, I don't think there was anything that could have been said to win back the jury. They were all obviously bitter and voted on emotions which is exactly what Dan was hoping wouldn't happen. The fact that he won BB before didn't help.

the social game and building relationships with the other HGs is just as, if not more important, than winning comps or winning HOH or POV. Failure to incorporate that part of the game into your strategy is just as stupid as a tennis coach teaching his students how to return serve but not how to serve themselves.

The only way Dan can be considered a great player is by ignoring or minimizing the socal game. Sorry, that spin doesnt work.

Dan built relationships and trust IN THE HOUSE arguably better than anyone. How else was he able to stab so many people in the back? Breaking people's trust is what was able to get the big dogs out of the house and is part of BB.

If Dan had a bad social game, then what made him get to the F2? It WAS his social game IMO. Frank was a beast in comps but didn't even make it to the F6 because he had a terrible social game. I guess that's where we disagree... I feel Dan had arguably the best social game and many people in the house even said that Dan had a strong social game.

I think it's safe to say that many people agree that Dan had the best gameplay. Many of the juror members and evicted HGs agreed, as well as many viewers. I don't see how you can say he's not a great player when many people considered him to have the best gameplay, and that's what BB should be judged on.

Social faming requires mre that just getting the hg's to trust you so that you can screw them.

I also would say that the hg's didnt trust him because of his game play THIS year but rather because of his gameplay when he won his season. Great play that year, TERRIBLE SHORT-SIGHTED game play this year.

He lost because the jurors were bitter, plain and simple. Ultimately he lost, but not because of poor gameplay or a poor social game, he had both the best overall gameplay and best social game IMO. How the jury votes is virtually out of his control... there's no rules on how to vote, and voting on emotions is just plain wrong IMO. He had almost all of the HGs as allies until he had them evicted... they just couldn't admit defeat. I guess if you think you know more than some of the most experienced BB players to ever play (Mike Boogie and Janelle), then I guess you're right.

If the HG's didn't trust him, why did they constantly take his word? They may not have trusted him, but they fell for every move. I guess we both also have different opinions on what short-sighted gameplay would be. I wouldn't call getting to the F2, winning $50k, outlasting 14(?) other HGs when you were a huge threat since the reset and virtually controlling the house for the second half of the show, short-sighted gameplay by ANY means... I would call that quite the accomplishment.

If Danielle and Dan were F2, even Danielle probably would've beat Dan. Using your logic, Danielle played a better game than Dan, and that's seriously LAUGHABLE because Danielle was essentially Dan's puppet from Day 1.

When you enter the BB house with 16 or however many players start the game-- and navigate all the detours, twists that are there by both the other hgs and BB and end up in the final two that's says a lot. THe hg's, in this case Dan and Ian, getting to f2 both win in different ways. This game will be disputed for a few weeks on who really won. If it wasn't for Dan constantly stirring the pot, Ian wouldn't even be there to claim the prize in the end. THis is the game of BB-- not Sunday school - every one play nice. Every season since BB started we have villains and those who play nice and fair. Most of the BB winners and final players have carried a little controversial baggage of some sort with them throughout the game. I like the fireworks this series creates. I like that it takes people out of their comfort zone, puts them in a "skinner box" where they try to bump each other off. And every hg has a different method for bumping their opponents off. The one thing I like about this show--- real world rules of conduct don't really apply here. Thats why it's just a game!!

When you enter the BB house with 16 or however many players start the game-- and navigate all the detours, twists that are there by both the other hgs and BB and end up in the final two that's says a lot. THe hg's, in this case Dan and Ian, getting to f2 both win in different ways. This game will be disputed for a few weeks on who really won. If it wasn't for Dan constantly stirring the pot, Ian wouldn't even be there to claim the prize in the end. THis is the game of BB-- not Sunday school - every one play nice. Every season since BB started we have villains and those who play nice and fair. Most of the BB winners and final players have carried a little controversial baggage of some sort with them throughout the game. I like the fireworks this series creates. I like that it takes people out of their comfort zone, puts them in a "skinner box" where they try to bump each other off. And every hg has a different method for bumping their opponents off. The one thing I like about this show--- real world rules of conduct don't really apply here. Thats why it's just a game!!

I respect anyone's opinion of Ian deserving to win... a case could be made for each player. However, I strongly disagree that Dan was a bad player this year. I don't see how ANYONE could argue Dan was a bad player when people are debating whether Ian or Dan should've won. It seriously boggles my mind that people would actually think that Dan played a bad game this year. To me, they're just as bitter as the people that were backstabbed by Dan.

When you enter the BB house with 16 or however many players start the game-- and navigate all the detours, twists that are there by both the other hgs and BB and end up in the final two that's says a lot. THe hg's, in this case Dan and Ian, getting to f2 both win in different ways. This game will be disputed for a few weeks on who really won. If it wasn't for Dan constantly stirring the pot, Ian wouldn't even be there to claim the prize in the end. THis is the game of BB-- not Sunday school - every one play nice. Every season since BB started we have villains and those who play nice and fair. Most of the BB winners and final players have carried a little controversial baggage of some sort with them throughout the game. I like the fireworks this series creates. I like that it takes people out of their comfort zone, puts them in a "skinner box" where they try to bump each other off. And every hg has a different method for bumping their opponents off. The one thing I like about this show--- real world rules of conduct don't really apply here. Thats why it's just a game!!

I respect anyone's opinion of Ian deserving to win... a case could be made for each player. However, I strongly disagree that Dan was a bad player this year. I don't see how ANYONE could argue Dan was a bad player when people are debating whether Ian or Dan should've won. It seriously boggles my mind that people would actually think that Dan played a bad game this year.

dtrain I couldn't agree with you more. There are some rules to playing BB-- can't sing in the house, can't get in a physical confrontation, no sleeping outside of the designated beds, etc. BUT last I checked there was no rule that says you couldn't use whatever means to get to the end. Dan's game took people out of their comfort zone-- that's what BB is about--he mastered the technique and it worked. It got him to the end. No easy feat. If it was== those on the jury wouldn't have been on the jury-- they'd still be in the game. I believe if this season had been all veterans -- Dan would have won hands down. They all got it-- the newbies didn't like the fact these vets entered their game, and no way were they going to reward one. Brit was right-- she said if Dan was next to a bottle of ketchup-- with this jury-- ketchup wins. Dan played a great BB game-- not the norm-- but who said anything about normal when it comes to BB and the game!!

When you enter the BB house with 16 or however many players start the game-- and navigate all the detours, twists that are there by both the other hgs and BB and end up in the final two that's says a lot. THe hg's, in this case Dan and Ian, getting to f2 both win in different ways. This game will be disputed for a few weeks on who really won. If it wasn't for Dan constantly stirring the pot, Ian wouldn't even be there to claim the prize in the end. THis is the game of BB-- not Sunday school - every one play nice. Every season since BB started we have villains and those who play nice and fair. Most of the BB winners and final players have carried a little controversial baggage of some sort with them throughout the game. I like the fireworks this series creates. I like that it takes people out of their comfort zone, puts them in a "skinner box" where they try to bump each other off. And every hg has a different method for bumping their opponents off. The one thing I like about this show--- real world rules of conduct don't really apply here. Thats why it's just a game!!

I respect anyone's opinion of Ian deserving to win... a case could be made for each player. However, I strongly disagree that Dan was a bad player this year. I don't see how ANYONE could argue Dan was a bad player when people are debating whether Ian or Dan should've won. It seriously boggles my mind that people would actually think that Dan played a bad game this year. To me, they're just as bitter as the people who were backstabbed by Dan.

Totally agree, dtrain...

Bottom line is that none of the 'newbies' wanted a coach to win the $500K as they repeatedly stated.The fact that Dan already had already won the $500K was strike 2.The jury didn't care about who played the best game...they would have given the win to ANYONE sitting next to Dan.

How come no one mentions that Boogie used the coaches' save on Ian?? He would have been gone early if not for that.How come no one mentions that Frank wanted to stab Dan in the back within DAYS of forming an alliance with him?? Why is Frank's hypocritical behavior acceptable game play, but Dan's ability to get Frank out first is unacceptable?? Bitter bitch is what Frank is, pure and simple....he got 'got' by the better player and he can cry holier-than-thou all he wants, I'm not buying.

It makes you guys feel better to blame the jurors for Dan's loss, that is your perogative.

Sounds to me you are only making it even clearer why Dan didnt play a great game...it would seem to me that a houseguest that hoped to win would play a game is such a way that didnt leave EVERYONE one of the jurors pissed off.

Those jurors arent bitter or mad because THEY lost, they are bitter and pissed off because of DAN'S gameplay.

Evel Dick knew who to play like Dan did this season but WITHOUT alienating ALL of the jurors.

And EARNING AND FINDING JURY VOTES IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE GAME.

lolol...loves to laugh at people who think the game is SOLELY about drama and lies and backstabbing. Some fans may PREFER all of that, but I think MOST fans recognize that getting to the f2 is only PART of the game.

It makes you guys feel better to blame the jurors for Dan's loss, that is your perogative.

Sounds to me you are only making it even clearer why Dan didnt play a great game...it would seem to me that a houseguest that hoped to win would play a game is such a way that didnt leave EVERYONE one of the jurors pissed off.

Those jurors arent bitter or mad because THEY lost, they are bitter and pissed off because of DAN'S gameplay.

Evel Dick knew who to play like Dan did this season but WITHOUT alienating ALL of the jurors.

And EARNING AND FINDING JURY VOTES IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE GAME.

lolol...loves to laugh at people who think the game is SOLELY about drama and lies and backstabbing. Some fans may PREFER all of that, but I think MOST fans recognize that getting to the f2 is only PART of the game.

Dick didn't have as many odds stacked against him... he didn't have to play ruthless... he was just another HG and hadn't won BB before. Dan had a target on his back since the reset but managed to turn most of the other HGs into his puppets, including Ian at times and still managed to get to F2. That's more than any other BB player can say.

The jurors were mad because of Dan's gameplay, yes... because they were burned so badly by his GOOD gameplay. He either backstabbed people by his own hand, or he brainwashed his alliance(s) (or even enemies) into doing whatever he wanted to do. He almost took out whatever player he wanted to, not because he was HOH, but because he had everyone listening to whatever he said. To me, that's good gameplay.

IMO, Ian's only big move was joining the quack pack and taking Boogie out. Every other move Ian pulled off was because he was listening to Dan or the QP. Since Britney left, Ian almost listened to everything Dan said, including throwing the first part of the final HOH comp.

However, your opinions dont change the fact the man lost by one of the biggest margins in BB history because of how HE played his game.

Great players dont alienate the jury on purpose.

I am quickly coming to the opinion that some of you guys really only value the parts of the game that involved high drama.

IAN WON MORE HOH's and POVS than Dan and won them we his ass was on the line. Using that metric, IAN was a better players this season and HAD NOTHING TO DO with any other jurors or houseguests.

I wont be goaded into arguing with people who just thrive on drama and disagreement. The best man won and he beat the player that you guys think played such a great game. What does that say about your analysis of Dan's game.

You are just wrong. But I recognize your right to be wrong.

Wont be discussing this subject anymore with any of you. You just try to push buttons.

You're not getting it... most of us realize that both played great games and we could argue all night who should've won. You seem to be in the minority in thinking that Dan played a terrible game, and that's where we disagree. Not only are you disagreeing with us, but you're disagreeing with most of the HGs, including Boogie and Janelle, two of the best players to play the game.

You keep saying that he lost because of his gameplay, but the jury didn't vote the way that they did because they thought he played a poor game (save for a few). Out of all of the jury members, I think only Frank and Joe genuinely felt that Dan played a bad game, but even them I think they voted partly out of anger. The rest voted either for whoever they were closer to, out of anger, or the fact that Dan had already won.. not because they felt Dan played a poor game. This is how I think the jury voted.Danielle voted for Dan because she was loyal and closer to DanBritney voted for Ian because she was closer to Ian (and maybe cuz Dan had already won). Britney even said Dan played a great game.Ashlee voted for Ian because she was closer to IanJoe voted for Ian because he thought Dan played a dirty/bad gameFrank dittoJenn probably voted for Ian slightly out of anger and the fact that Dan had already won. She said herself that Dan played a strong game.Shane voted for Ian out of anger. He said in an interview that it may have been partly out of emotions, but I call BS... it was completely out of emotions.

Dan didn't win many POVs or HOHs because that was his game plan earlier on... to come off as a weak player and fly under the radar. He didn't have to win comps to be a strong player... he was a strong player because he was a good social player... most of the time he convinced others to do what he wanted. Even if he could've won more comps, it probably would've worked against him because he already had such a big target on him.